Buyer Beware update

[Todd Z]

Coastie,

He is not making it personal, BUT the problem lies IS that not everyone is reading the post complety....



The visor fits, SO do 99 explorer seats in the Sport trac. The listing says they don't, But they will bolt on.. So just because the visor comes up for a ranger, it FITS the sport trac..

Being in the JY business this should be easy to understand....



The best thing is everyone walks away from this and cuts their losses..



Again I agree with TJR,, since shawn accepted the $45.00 refund, he agrees this is restitution by accepting it, Plain and simple, I believe that is also law !!



And now by trying to slandering Wayne, he could be gone after him self...



I feel for shawn, Believe me , I don't know how I would feel being out money, BUT when wayne sent the $45.00 bucks, Shawn should have never accepted it, and refused it...

This would give shawn a leg to stand on, But Now I will say wayne did the right thing, and restitution has been made..

Todd Z

 

[Kevin Palmer]

After re-reading it several times I must admit that I took it personal when it was not meant directly at me. I have edited my above post.



Todd, I do agree with you.

 

[Joe Averion]

Not to take sides because I am not at all, but unless I misread something didn't Shawn accept the $45 refund BEFORE he found out that it won't fit his Trac? (or at least according to the part #). If that is the case, he accepted a refund because of the product arriving damaged and it has nothing to do at all with him being shipped the WRONG product (again, according to the part #) Just because he refunded part of the original amount because of damage during transport doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities for shipping the wrong product.



I mean if that is the case, a lot of shady sellers would ship out damaged junk whether it fits or not, agree to a partial refund to satisfy the customer and still make money off of something that is not at all what the customer wants. Seems like a good way to make an extra few bucks.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Joe A says:

Just because he refunded part of the original amount because of damage during transport doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities for shipping the wrong product.

Joe, I have asked Shawn several times if he actually accepted that $45 refund, and he hasn't answered, so that along with his original post which I dissected for moderation makes it pretty clear he did.



However, it was never clear what, exactly the rationale was for that $45 refund. For example, was it to help cover the cost of the damage. If so, Wayne was nice in providing that refund.



Regardless, the refund, it's terms, and Shawn's acceptance can be viewed as the completion of the whole transaction.



Furthermore, it has NOT been established that the "wrong part" was shipped. There seems to be some debate on that.



The only thing that is clear, in my mind, when you have the part in hand and are negotiating and near the accepting of a partial refund, there is NO REASON you can't and shouldn't inspect, test fit, and otherwise assure with 100% certainty it's the right part and it works for you before accepting the terms of the refund; especially if the transaction to-date has been rocky. Seems like "last-chance-ville" to me.



TJR

 

[Joe Averion]

TJR, I agree with you about inspecting, test fitting, etc. I believe though that he did inspect it, that is how he knew it was damaged and as far as test fitting, well how can you test fit something that is broken?



As far as establishing if it is the wrong part or not, didn't Kevin just run the part # of the product in question and it came back for a Ranger?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

>> As far as establishing if it is the wrong part or not, didn't Kevin just run the part # of the product in question and it came back for a Ranger?



Doesn't prove anything. Some Ranger parts "fit" STs. I will go by the photo Wayne posted several times showing the parts on his ST.



TJR

 

[Fudged Undies]

Since the argument of accepting the refund has come up, shouldn't we also consider why snss3 accepted the package in the condition he posted above? If the package was is in that poor of a condition, shouldn't it have been inspected at the time of acceptence or just flat out declined? Isn't that what is normally suggested by shippers?

 

[Joe Averion]

Doesn't prove anything TJR?? Fact of the matter is the part # comes back to a Ranger part. Just because it "may fit", doesn't make it the right part. Now what is a fact is just because a photo was posted showing "a part" installed on a Trac doesn't mean that the same part in the photo is the one that got shipped. I doubt that Wayne would do something like that at all, but if you want to argue facts then I can't see how it can be more clear than that.

 

[Chops]

Q,

For the sake of argument, who is the johnny come lately?

Joe signing on 1-4-2003

or Q, 3-28-2005?

 

[Joe Averion]

Q- Newness?? LMAO Will you care to look at my first post date as opposed to yours? And did you not see where I typed...."I doubt that Wayne would do something like that at all"? But it's ok Q, I will just attribute your comment to your inability to pay attention.



EDIT Thanks Chops, at least some pay attention LOL

 

[Thomas Rogers]

What Q said. The issue isn't if the part number is for a Ranger; the issue is DOES IT FIT. It does fit, or did fit, as was clear in the picture Wayne provided. Shawn said it didn't fit his ST...yeah, so? Maybe because it got warped or damaged during shipping, maybe because he doesn't know how to install it the way Wayne did. Too bad he accepted a refund for $45. Do we know the terms of the sale? Was it sold as-is?



There are a lot of unknowns but what we do know is: Wayne shipped, Shawn didn't buy insurance (whether presented with the option or not), the parts were reportedly damage during shipping, Shawn and Wayne settled on a partial refund; Shawn then wanted a full refund after reporting the part doesn't fit.



Case closed. Wayne did enough already. The only thing left for him to do is let Shawn pay to ship the parts back and refund his entire amount. And, I bet Wayne would require he insure the items when shipping them back, and pay for that to.



I am not recommending Wayne do that, because even that sucks because if the parts are broken, why should Wayne get them back broken.



The point of restitution should have been when the parts arrived damaged, and the party to provide restitution was the shipper.



TJR

 

[Joe Averion]

Oh and another thing to think about Q before you go spouting off about something you may not know, I have also dealt with Wayne before. The outcome of which I decided to keep to myself.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Joe A, so you dealt with Wayne before and decided to keep the outcome to yourself.



Does that make you an impartial party when it comes to this topic?



I have NEVER dealt with Wayne before.



TJR

 

[Joe Averion]

No TJR, it doesn't make me impartial. Does it for everyone else? And what is it with some members here? Do they only read what they want to? I have said in my first post on this that I am not taking sides, also said I doubt Wayne would try to underhand a customer. But if you think that just because of the many testimonials any certain sponsor gets from members is going to make me jump on the bandwagon, then you are wrong. Or are you saying that only certain members can play devil's advocate while the rest are reduced to mere spectators?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nope, Joe, I asked because I was simply wondering if you could be insightful and impartial enough to have an opinion on this topic regardless of your past dealings with Wayne.



If I heard that somone had a bad experience with a seller and then took the side of a debate with that seller that was against the seller I might question that IF I thought that side was unreasonable (speaking generically now).



TJR

 

[Joe Averion]

See that is the thing TJR, all I said was I decided to keep the outcome to myself. I haven't said either way if my dealings with Wayne were positive, negative or neutral. Trust me, I know enough to assertain that every circumstance is different so one doesn't always directly relate to the other.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

>> See that is the thing TJR, all I said was I decided to keep the outcome to myself. I haven't said either way if my dealings with Wayne were positive, negative or neutral. Trust me, I know enough to ascertain that every circumstance is different so one doesn't always directly relate to the other.



And note that I said "speaking generically now", which was meant as a hint to you that I clearly read and understood what you were saying.



However, you will agree that in general, a positive or negative a past business deal can lend some people to me partial; but NO business deal would mean more impartial.



The fact that you feel confident that you can divorce your past dealing from your judgement is a very good, introspective thing.



Many can't do that. I'm not even sure I can do it, because, frankly, how do you really know how much of what we think is "free choice" and "free thought" and not actually hard-wiring caused by past memories and incidents (psych 101).



TJR

 

[Joe Averion]

You are right TJR, past dealings can lead some people to be swayed regardless of facts or circumstances. I guess I just have had many past experiences, both good and bad that can allow me now to be able to stay focused on just the dealing at hand and not be swayed by past experiences.



You mentioned that people can maybe be wired by past memories and incidents and I agree with that. I also do think that people can learn from past incidents and apply what they may have learned to future incidents (I highly doubt that is psych 101 but psych or not, it works )

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yup, and for people to truly learn from past incidents they often first have to understand how those past incidents may be affecting their current behavior, even if subconsciencely so that the learning is "constructive".



Some people aren't even aware of the "programming" that has happened to them in their lives, and when it is shown to them, they dismiss it and never get to that learning part you mentioned.



TJR

 

[Joe Averion]

I agree with you TJR. Me personally, if I were in Shawn's shoes I wouldn't have even brought this up here in a public forum. I try my best to always follow the saying "praise in public and preach in private". But regardless it was his choice and that I can't fault him for.